A Study of Landscape Architecture Design Methods

Christopher James Lidy

Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Landscape Architecture

Professor Benjamin C. Johnson, Committee Chair

Professor Brian Katen
Professor Caren Yglesias, Ph.D.

March 22, 2006

Alexandria, Virginia

Keywords:
Landscape Architecture, Design Methods, Design Theory

Copyright, 2006, Chris Lidy

 A Study of Landscape Architecture Design Methods

Christopher James Lidy

Abstract

How do different methods employed by landscape architects impact the design outcome? This paper iden-
tifies and defines design methods in landscape architecture that may be classified as part of four internal
and external connections and structures categories. Methods are further examined through two design
exercises. In the first design exercise, the identified methods are individually applied to the same simple
design which is used as a control. The only variable changed is the method used to design. The resulting
designs are shown and analyzed. In the second design exercise, three different methods are applied to a
complex design. Similar to the first design exercise, all variables are held constant except for the design
methods. The resulting design outcomes are shown and analyzed. One conclusion from this work recom-
mends landscape architecture designers use at least one method in each of four categories: 1) Modeling
Systems, 2) Interrelationship and Dependencies, 3) Incorporation and Adadaption, and 4) Structure Prob-
lems in order to explore complex design issues more thoroughly.
Table of Contents

Title Page page i

Abstract page ii
Table of Contents page iii
List of Multimedia Object page iv
List of Multimedia Object page v
Chapter 1 Introduction page 1
Chapter 2 Literature Review page 2
Chapter 3 Methodology page 7
Chapter 4 Design Exercise page 8
Chapter 5 Conclusion page 33
Bibliography page 36
Vita page 40

iii
Lists of Multimedia Objects*

Figure 2-1 Design Loop page 3

Figure 4-1 Crowd page 8
Figure 4-2 Tidal Flow page 8
Figure 4-3 Environmental Heating page 8
Figure 4-4 Anthropometric page 9
Figure 4-5 Flower page 9
Figure 4-6 Design page 9
Figure 4-7 Support Structure page 10
Figure 4-8 Bridge Design page 10
Figure 4-9 Egg Shell Roof page 10
Figure 4-10 Brain Storming page 11
Figure 4-11 Stage page 11
Figure 4-12 No Access page 12
Figure 4-13 Unlimited Access page 12
Figure 4-14 Sketch page 12
Figure 4-15 Design page 12
Figure 4-16 Small Town page 13
Figure 4-17 Parisian Cafe page 13
Figure 4-18 Cafe, Washington, D.C. page 13
Figure 4-19 Steeple page 14
Figure 4-20 Pattern Language page 14
Figure 4-21 Andersonville Prison page 15
Figure 4-22 Round/Square Peg page 15
Figure 4-23 Optimization page 16
Figure 4-24 Disaggregation page 16
Figure 4-25 Site Plan Mowed Lawn page 17
Figure 4-26 Site Plan Prairie page 17
Figure 4-27 Rain Garden page 18
Figure 4-28 Beaver Dam page 18
Figure 4-29 Site Plan page 19
Figure 4-30 Section page 19
Figure 4-31 Site Plan page 19
Figure 4-32 Section page 19
Figure 4-33 Site Plan page 20
Figure 4-34 Section page 20
Figure 4-35 Site Plan page 20
Figure 4-36 Section page 20

*Note: Unless otherwise noted, all multimedia created by the

author.
iv
Lists of Multimedia Objects*

Figure 4-37 Site Plan page 21

Figure 4-38 Section page 21
Figure 4-39 Site Plan page 21
Figure 4-40 Section page 21
Figure 4-41 Site Plan page 22
Figure 4-42 Section page 22
Figure 4-43 Site Plan page 22
Figure 4-44 Section page 22
Figure 4-45 Site Plan page 23
Figure 4-46 Section page 23
Figure 4-47 Site Plan page 23
Figure 4-48 Section page 23
Figure 4-49 Site Plan page 24
Figure 4-50 Section page 24
Figure 4-51 Site Map page 25
Figure 4-52 Site Map page 25
Figure 4-53 Design 1 Beginning page 26
Figure 4-54 Design 1 Middle page 26
Figure 4-55 Design 1 End page 26
Figure 4-56 Summary and Analysis page 27
Figure 4-57 Design 2 Beginning page 28
Figure 4-58 Design 2 Middle page 28
Figure 4-59 Design 2 End page 28
Figure 4-60 Summary and Analysis page 29
Figure 4-61 Design 3 Beginning page 30
Figure 4-62 Design 3 Middle page 30
Figure 4-63 Design 3 End page 30
Figure 4-64 Design 3 Sections page 31
Figure 4-65 Summary and Analysis page 32

*Note: Unless otherwise noted, all multimedia created by the

author.
v
Chapter 1

Introduction

This thesis centers on the key question: What effect do different design methods employed by
landscape architects have on the design outcome?
One component of the design process in landscape architecture is methodology, which should be a
conscious choice of methods to achieve a desired result. However, many times the choice of methodology
is not given much thought. The designer chooses a methodology that she or he is comfortable with or has
used in the past with no little or no thought on how this choice meshes with the objective of the design.
(Lynch, 270)
While many variables shape landscape architecture design, only one variable is easily changeable
at the moment of design: the choice of methods. Other components, such as experiences, perceptions or
cognitive abilities, are not readily changeable at the moment one starts a design. (Winner, 28; Conner, 24-
29)
Methods influence three elements in design. First, they establish the structure of and connections
in a design. Second, they have a direct determination on the design result. Finally, they serve as refer-
ence points and road maps from the abstract world of design to the concrete world in which the design is
placed.
In order to examine the role methods play in landscape architecture design eighteen methods are
identified, discussed, and categorized. Each method is applied to a simple design problem and the re-
sults are shown and discussed. From the information generated by application of each method to a simple
design, three diverse methods are applied to a complex landscape design problem. The body of this paper
consists of the analysis and implications of this analysis.
Four points summarize the key reasons for studying methods of landscape architecture design.
First, the mental processes of landscape architecture design merit continual study given the expanding
field. As a result, the process of design and how methods fit into this process is not understood, causing
confusion and frustration for students not able to understand where in the design process they might have
gone off course. (Jones, xxvi) Second, the increase in computerization and information technologies can
lead to a flawed confidence that any problem can be solved if one has enough information or data points.
Under this assumption, if one can gather all available information, the answer will be readily apparent and
will be the only way to solve the problem. (Polk, 46) This is not true. The nonlinear and inherently human
nature of landscape architecture demands an incorporation of a heuristic approach to landscape architec-
ture. (Rowe, 18) Third, knowing the eighteen methods and their effects on the design outcome allows a
landscape architect to choose a method that is most compatible with the designer’s end vision or design
strategy. So the methods influence on the design should match the design intent. (Jones, 75) Fourth, un-
derstanding the methods in the design process allows a landscape architect to evaluate the end result of his
or her design and to quickly construct changes in the design by applying different methods.

1
Chapter 2

Literature Review

What methods are used in landscape architecture design and how do these methods affect its out-
come?
A significant book address landscape architect design methods: Kevin Lynch and Gary Hack’s
Site Planning 1,2,3, first published in 1984 currently in its revised and expanded third edition. A second
influential publication is Peter G. Rowe’s “A Priori Knowledge and Heuristic Reasoning in Architectural
Design published in.” The Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 36/1 (Fall, 1982).
Lynch and Hack address methods of landscape architecture directly. They justify the study of
methods the following way:

“By common account, design is a mystery, a lightning flash. Men of genius receive these
flashes, and they learn to receive them by following the example of other men of genius. After
the revelation, there are details to develop and the work of carrying out the revealed solution.
But these are separate problems, whether one thinks of them as grubby nuisances or as the
overriding issues of practicality.

Common account is correct: there is a mystery in design, as there is in all human thought. But
the account is otherwise wrong. Design is not restricted to genius, nor is it a uniform or simple
process, nor is it distinct from practicality or detail. Practicing designers are aware of its con-
volutions, but they also half believe in the lightning flash. They are trained to design in one
set way, which they apply to every occasion. The one way is often clumsy and wasteful. But
most of the new systematic techniques now used for problem solving do not seem very useful
either, since site planning is so open-ended a process.

If design is the imaginative creation of possible forms (of environment in this case), which are
created to achieve certain purposes and are complete with the instructions for making them,
then design is practiced by many people and in many different ways. Some ways are new,
some quite old, and each is relevant to a particular situation. All of them include the generation
and evaluation of new possibilities. Let us begin with a descriptive inventory of the known
methods of generation and selecting form possibilities.” (Lynch, 270-271)

Lynch and Hack identify the following twelve methods used in landscape architecture: 1) Learn-
ing Probes; 2) Subconscious Suggestion; 3) Brainstorming; 4) Evaluation Criteria; 5) Well Spaced Al-
ternatives; 6) Focus on the Means; 7) Incremental Improvement; 8) Incremental Adaption; 9) Behavior
Settings; 10) Structure of the Problem; 11) Optimizing the Essential Function; and 12) Disaggregation.
Lynch and Hack do not talk about process or design theory. Rather, they concentrate on the identification
and definitions of the methods.
Rowe takes a very different tack and views methods as part of a generic design process. Rowe
does not identifies methods per se, but identifies forms of reasoning which are analogous to Lynch and
Hack’s methods. He states,
2
 “Design is often guided by heuristic reasoning involving solution images, analogies, or re-
stricted sets of form-giving rules that partially and provisionally define the “end” or solution
state of a problem, i.e. what it should be like.” (Rowe, 18)

Though Rowe is an architect and constructs his arguments from an architect’s viewpoint, he ap-
proaches the subject of design methods in a generic manner adaptable to any design effort and not con-
fined simply to architectural or landscape design. Rowe’s methods are readily adaptable to landscape
architecture. The adaptability of Rowe’s methods to other design disciplines is described by his opening
statement.

“A distinction can be made in the world of problems between those that are well defined and
those that are ill defined. In solving the former kind the “ends” are known and one has to find
the “means”. In the latter kind, that includes most architectural design problems, both the
“ends” and the “means” are unknown at first and one has to define the problem. Architectural
design problems can also be referred to as being “wicked problems” in that they have no de-
finitive formulation, no explicit “stopping rule,” always more than one plausible explanation,
a problem formulation that corresponds to a solution and vice versa, and that their solutions
cannot be strictly correct or false. Tackling a problem of this type requires some initial insight,
the exercise of some provisional set of rules, inference, or plausible strategy, in other words,
the use of heuristic reasoning.” (Rowe, 18)

Rowe places his methods in the context of a design process, which is helpful for illustrating where
and how methods are involved as one designs.

“During the course of designing one mode of heuristic reasoning may be found to be unpro-
ductive and give way to other kinds; co-mingling may even occur. As a result design appears
to be essentially an emergent phenomenon where new information about a problem is generat-
ed, evaluated together with a priori knowledge, and solution strategies amended accordingly.”
(Rowe, 18)

Rowe defines a design process loop where input is subjected to some type of process, which in
turn generates output. The output is then reviewed and feedback is generated. The output then become
the new input and the cycle continues. Rowe’s model is rather crude compared to Col. John Boyd’s loop
model OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) (Polk, 6)

Figure 2-1 Design Loop (Polk, 13)

3
Polk defines the following key terms.

• Observe: To gather information and evidence; to discover or determine the existence, presence, or
fact of. In this stage the designer observes him or herself, the site and its surrounding, and the design’s
objective.
• Orient: To construct a mental model that allows the designer to understand the reality of the present
situation and the desired state. In this stage, the designer is able to understand the present state and
visualize in what direction or directions--either narrowly or broadly defined-- the design should move.
It must be noted that Boyd stresses the importance of creating a new reality during this stage of the
design loop. The designer must avoid using the familiar paradigms that do not reflect the current real-
ity. Before the designer brings together linked elements of the observation, he or she must destruct the
existing whole, break it into it elements, and then create a new perspective of reality by constructing
from the specific to the general. The intent is best captured by Polk:

“(Destruction of a domain or breaking the whole into its respective constituent elements)
before he” (in this case the designer) “can collect linking elements to recreate a new and im-
proved observation creation of a new perceptions of reality through specific to general induc-
tion, synthesis, and integration of common qualities or attributes found in the chaotic world.”
(Polk, 19)

In this case, the chaotic world is the design. So one destroys the observed or starting reality so that the
influences perceived or real of the starting reality are reduced.
• Decide: To make choices of how to reach the desired state. This involves the selection of
methodologies and course of action.
• Act: To implement the decision. (Polk, 16-21)

Returning to Rowe. Rowe classifies his methods into five branches of heuristic reasoning.

“Five classes of heuristics can be identified largely according to the kind of subject matter in-
volved. They are: 1) the use of anthropometric analogies, 2) the use of literal analogies, 3) the
use of environmental relations, 4) the use of typologies, and 5) the use of formal “languages”.
These classes were based on protocol analysis of architectural designers at work, mixed with
some speculation. Each class is by no means exclusive of the characteristics of others, nor
totally inclusive of the range of possible heuristics. Rather, the classification is one of practical
convenience for grouping and discussing observations.” (Rowe, 18)

Combining the work of Lynch and Hack and Rowe generates seventeen methods. However, it
must be pointed out that Rowe recognizes that the dividing line between classifications are not absolute
and instead are used for convenience. Rowe’s five methods have characteristics crossing classification
categories. While Lynch and Hack do not recognize this issue, their methods are also prone to blurred
classification lines. An example is Brain Storming and Subconscious Suggestion. Brain Storming is a
way of welling up Subconscious Suggestions that are then further defined with the help of others in a
Brain Storming session. Here Brain Storming crosses classification into the Subconscious Suggestion
method.
One interesting note is that while the methods overlap, there is no over lap between Lynch’s and
Rowe’s methods. This raises the question of whether all possible methods have been identified.

4
 Many authors discuss design process, methodology, and methods but blur their distinctions. This
thesis makes the following distinctions. The design process is considered the generic thought process of a
designer as she or he designs. Methodology is the application of methods to solve a design, while meth-
ods are the structured systematic approaches to problem solving. Methodology is not design process nor is
design process a method. One of the reasons there is so much confusion about design process, methodol-
ogy and methods is that many designers use one method, which to them become the design process.
Methodology is involved in the action phase of the design process. At this point, the designer
generally understands the current situation and has a general or specific end result in mind. Based on this
desired end result, the designer then makes a conscious choice of a method or combination of methods
which becomes the designer’s methodology. With a methodology, a designer has a roadmap for mov-
ing from the general starting area to the desired end. This is a design strategy. Having a design strategy
allows others to have a common framework to discuss, collaborate, and understand the working design.
During a critique, how many students could answer the question “What is your design strategy?”
Another area of concern is that only two authors have researched and written about architecture
design methods. While the work of Lynch and Rowe has represented essential first steps, more researchers
might result in a more diverse, and possibly more complete, body of work on the study of design methods
in landscape architecture design.
Compounding this concern is the fact that both authors completed their work around the same
period of time--the early 1980s. Given the dramatic increases in technology in the landscape architectural
field since the early 1980s, this time-centric research may be dated. Evidence of this conclusion may be
found by looking at the essays’ Simon Swaffield included in his Reader: Theory of Landscape Architec-
ture. (2002) After Lynch and Hack’s essay excerpt, the next most recent and single scholar is Bernard
Lassus, hardly a main stream theoretical voice. These essay talk more of process then methods.
I expanded my research to include other design disciplines, such as arts, science, engineering, and
computer sciences. However, all but one of the methods used in these field could in fit into one of the sev-
enteen methods identified by Lynch and Rowe. (Jones, 192-199) The one method not identified by Lynch
and Rowe is complex system modeling. It involves the study, management and construction of a complex
system, which is defined as:

“A system comprised of a (usually large) number of (usually strongly) interacting entities,

processes, or agents, the understanding of which requires the development, or the use of, new
scientific tools, nonlinear models, out-of equilibrium descriptions and computer simulations.”
(Richards, 221)

“Almost all interesting processes in nature are highly cross linked. In many systems, however,
we can distinguish a set of fundamental building blocks, which interact nonlinearly to form
compound structures or functions with an identity that requires more explanatory devices than
those used to explain the building blocks. This process of emergence of the need for new,
complementary, modes of description is known as hierarchical self-organization, and systems
that observe this characteristic are defined as complex (2). Examples of these systems are gene
networks that direct developmental processes, immune networks that preserve the identity of
organisms, social insect colonies, neural networks in the brain that produce intelligence and
consciousness, ecological networks, social networks comprised of transportation, utilities, and
telecommunication systems, as well as economies.” (Rocha, 1)

5
 Landscape architects study, manage, control, construct and interact with complex systems. Very rarely
do landscape architects deal with systems that are not complex by nature. Therefore landscape architects need
a method to deal with complex systems. That method is complex system modeling or system modeling. System
modeling can be defined as “concerned with basic and applied research on simulations and analysis of complex
systems, as well as development of applications to understand and control such systems.” (Rocha, 1)
In summation, there are eighteen types of methods used by landscape architects during a design process:
1) System Modeling; 2) Environmental Relation; 3) Anthropometric Analogies; 4) Literal Analogies; 7) Learn-
ing Probes; 8) Subconscious Suggestion; 9) Brainstorming; 10) Evaluation Criteria; 11) Well Spaced Alterna-
tives; 12) Focus on the Means; 13) Incremental Improvement; 14) Incremental Adaption; 15) Behavior Settings;
16) Structure of the Problem; 17) Optimizing the Essential Function; and 18) Disaggregation.

6
Chapter 3

Methodology

The methodology used in this study is as follows. First, methods applicable to landscape architec-
ture are identified through a literature review. Each identified method then is defined and a visual repre-
sentation of the method is developed.
The design exercises involve two parts. The first deals with the investigation of how different
methods effects the outcome of a simple control design. The design is simplistic to facilitate keeping all
variables constant except for the method used. Each method is applied to the design problem, and the
results are analyzed.
The second design exercise examines whether a single method can be used in a complex design
fairly typical of a real world design problem and whether different methods will result in a different design
outcomes. Three different methods are selected for their diversity and minimal overlap in characteristics.
The resulting designs are analyzed and discussed. Established comparative strengths and weaknesses of
each method. Reviewing these strengths and weaknesses might suggest another approach or design strat-
egy based on identified design goals.

7
Chapter 4

Design Exercise

Of the four components of the process involved in the design loop, only methodologies are readily
changeable. Scholars have identified the following eighteen distinct design methods.

1. System Modeling
System modeling solves a design by looking at a system, understanding its function and stimuli,
placing the system in the design context and substituting design elements for function and stimuli. In the
following example, the movement of the crowd is similar to the movement of the tide. For example, when
designing a plaza, the crowd could be thought of as water moving with a tide and managed by the same
means as one controls water movement.

Figure 4-1 Crowd Figure 4-2 Tidal Flow

2. Environmental Relations
Environmental relations incorporates the proper relation between man and the environment and
includes considerations of how materials interact with the environment. The following diagram shows
the intent to use environmental heating to control the structure’s internal temperature. In the landscape
architecture design context, landscape architects incorporate native plants into their designs to repair or
minimize the environmental impact of a project.

Figure 4-3 Environmental Heating 8

3. Anthropometric Analogies
Anthropometric analogies focus on the human body and its relationship to the design goal. The
following diagrams center on the baseline relationship of the human body to the design. The program ele-
ments are solved, and these solutions are then used to develop the design to completion. When designing
a plaza, it is very important to incorporate how humans relate to the site. For example, is the bench too
big and uncomfortable? Can one see over the wall if standing next to it, 10 feet away or 50 feet away?

Figure 4-4 Anthropometric

4. Literal Analogies
Literal analogies use an existing form or construct to generate the solution for the design. The fol-
lowing example shows how one form influences the design. In the landscape architecture design context,
if one is designing a path to a reptile exhibit, the path could be modeled after a snake moving along the
ground.

Figure 4-5 Flower Figure 4-6 Design

9
5. Learning Probes
Learning probes start without a comprehensive understanding of all issues relating to the design.
The design generates information used to explore the issues and understand the interplay of elements.
The example starts with what known in its most basic form—what type of structure is needed to support
the bridge. The information is used to “play” with the various elements of the structure and evaluate the
results and effects within the design.

Figure 4-7 Support Structure Figure 4-8 Bridge Design

6. Subconscious Suggestion
Subconscious suggestion brings forth the processing power of the subconscious to solve a design.
Many find this method hit or miss and unreliable. In the following example, the roof structure takes the
form of an egg shell, strong yet thin.

Figure 4-9 Egg Shell Roof

10
7. Brain storming
Brain storming relies on a group or collective effort to generate solutions for the design. The fol-
lowing diagrams the brain storming process.

Figure 4-10 Brain Storming

8. Evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria sets the criteria and subordinates all other design elements to this criteria. In
this example, the criteria is for the last row to hear a pin drop on stage. Landscape architects commonly
use a criteria for site run and design to that goal.

Figure 4-11 Stage

11
9. Well Spaced Alternatives
Well spaced alternatives bracket a design solution by the use of extreme alternatives. In one of the
following photos, access is restricted by car, and in the alternative, access is unlimited by car. Neither
alternative is the design solution, but they bracket the solution. The solution is found somewhere between
these two alternatives.

Figure 4-12 No Access Figure 4-13 Unlimited Access

10. Means-focus
Means-focus plays with forms or means to generate a solution, rather than focusing on the problem
or object of the design. Here the designer uses free-moving sketches to develop a roof design.

Figure 4-14 Sketch

Figure 4-15 Design
12
11. Incremental improvement
Incremental improvement enhances a design gradually. Many times this is done by the use of case
studies. A case study tries to understand the system being studied and apply it to a new situation, making
small improvements. In the following sketch, the designer tries to understand the feel of a small town and
convey this to a new development, at the same time improving parts that will not diminish the feeling of a
small town.

Figure 4-16 Small Town

12. Incremental adaption

Incremental adaption applies a successful design to a similar situation. The following sketch
shows how a Parisian cafe is copied in Washington, D.C.

Figure 4-17 Parisian Cafe Figure 4-18 Cafe, Washington, D.C.

13
13. Typologies
Typologies are past solutions whose principles are considered constant and invariable within cul-
tural contexts. As the following example illustrates, in the western culture, steeples are generally associ-
ated with houses of worship. This is what the design intends to communicate by the use of a type form.

Figure 4-19 Steeple

14. Pattern languages

Pattern languages are the rules representing the order and correct function of the relationship be-
tween man and his environment. The following images show the underlining pattern and relationship of
three different towns. These relationships or patterns can be applied to different designs by increasing or
decreasing the scale. For example, designing an amusement park, one or a combination of these layouts
might be useful.

Figure 4-20 Pattern Language

14
15. Behavioral Setting
Behavioral setting design identifies behavior patterns that are independent and stable. For ex-
ample, a prison has areas designed to address certain behaviors, such as containment, food preparation,
hygiene, etc. In landscape architecture design, common behaviors would include parking, gathering areas,
or filtration for run off.

Figure 4-21 Andersonville Prison

16. Structure-of-the-Problem
The structure-of-the-problem method focuses on the key problem. Once a solution is developed
for this problem, the design falls into place. In the following example, the round pegs represent standard
design problems. The square peg is the unique or key problem that must be addressed before the design
is complete. In the landscape architecture context, standard design problems include issues such as what
material to use in constructing a walkway and what type of plants to use in the design. Meanwhile, the
key problem could be how to maximize and preserve a great view.

Figure 4-22 Round/Square Peg

15
17. Optimization Essential Function
Optimization identifies the key functions of the design and works through each function, solving
each as if it were the most important function. The information gathered is used to better understand how
each function will fit into the design. In the following example, each function is separated into program
elements. The program elements are then solved, and these solutions are used to develop the design to
completion.

Figure 4-23 Optimization

18. Disaggregation
Disaggregation divides a problem into subsets, solves for each subset and then combines the solu-
tions of each subset to form a solution. In the following example, each piece of the game must be sepa-
rately solved before the game is complete. In the landscape architecture context, each piece represents a
design problem, such as topography and site run off. Each problem must be solved separately and then
combined to complete the design.

Figure 4-24 Disaggregation

16
Design Methods Applied to Simple Designs

The following is the work generated by applying each method to the problem of run off from a
parking lot. The design problem is kept simple and all variables except method type are kept constant. The
work is organized by: the name of the method type; a brief description of how the method is applied; and
the resulting design. The limitation of the design problem resulted in some method types not being appli-
cable to the design. Where this happens, another design example is used.
Many authors discuss design process, methodology, and methods but blur their distinctions. This
thesis makes the following distinctions. First, the design process is considered the generic thought process
of a designer as she or he designs. Second, methodology is the application of methods to solve a design,
while methods are the structured systematic approaches to problem solving.

System Modeling:
The design is based on the functions of natural hydrologic system. The processing capacity of
some part of the natural system must be increased to accommodate the change in run off from the parking
lot. Plantings on the site are changed from mowed lawn to tall grass prairie. The prairie planting offsets
the increased run off of the parking lot by increasing holding capacity, absorption, and filtration of run off.

Figure 4-25 Site Plan Mowed Figure 4-26 Site Plan Prairie
Lawn

17
Environmental Relation
Rain garden design transitions the man-made area into the large environment and minimizes the
ecological damage.

Figure 4-27 Rain Garden

Anthropometric Analogies
The method is difficult to use as a sole method to solve this design problem. The method can be
used to solve smaller problems within the site, such as how big should a manhold should be or how a per-
son would walk from their car to the building to generate the shape and path of the sidewalks.

Literal Analogies
The design uses a beaver dam to control the hydrology of the site. Beavers are encouraged to settle
on the site and dam the small stream. The water is held in a pond on site

Figure 4-28 Beaver Dam

18
Learning Probes
As one plays with the design form, a solution becomes apparent. In this case, raising the parking
lot and allowing vegetation to grow under the structure solves the run off problem.

Figure 4-29 Site Plan Figure 4-30 Section

Subconscious Suggestion
The structure of the roof is taken from a partial picture of a suspension bridge.

Figure 4-32 Section

Figure 4-31 Site Plan

Brain Storming
The brain storming method requires more than one person. Since the author is the only person
involved in the design, the method cannot be used. If one were to use this method, one would assemble
a group that included end users of both the parking lot and the stream in which the run off flows into,
the designers and the developers. Then one could have a diverse brain storming session with each group
bringing a different element to the session and building on each others’ ideas.
19
Evaluation Criteria
The criteria is set as a maximum amount over time of water leaving the site. The design is con-
structed to gather the run off from the parking lot, to use the water to raise a control gate, to retain the
water and to slowly release it, meeting the stated criteria.

Figure 4-33 Site Plan Figure 4-34 Section

Well Spaced Alternatives

One design raises the parking lot. The other design sinks the parking lot. The solution is between
the two.

Figure 4-36 Section

Figure 4-35 Site Plan

20
Focus on the Means
The form of the roof is generated by the exploration of form through the use of free-style sketches.

Figure 4-37 Site Plan Figure 4-38 Section

Incremental Improvement
Here a standard design used for controlling run off is improved by changing the design of a side-
walk to capture, retain, and filter run off.

Figure 4-40 Section

Figure 4-39 Site Plan

21
Incremental Adaption
A rain garden is adapted to a parking lot design.

Figure 4-42 Section

Figure 4-41 Site Plan

Typologies
Typologies are not directly applicable to this design problem. Maybe in a few years, the inclusion
of a rain garden will identify the building project as being enviromentally friendly or green.
Pattern Languages
The pattern language may not be applicable to the run off from this site, but it is applicable to the
way the cars enter and leave the site. Americans drive on the right side of the road, and as a result, this
should be incorporated into the parking lot design.
Behavior Setting
Slowing run off, filtering, retaining, and dispersing water are identified as behavioral settings and
are incorporated into the design.

Figure 4-43 Site Plan Figure 4-44 Section

22
Structure of the Problem
The key problem is rain running off the parking lot. A green roof is constructed over the parking
lot that mimics the pre-development hydrology.

Figure 4-45 Site Plan Figure 4-46 Section

Optimizing the Essential Function

The optimal parking lot in this case is to have preamble pavement with a filtration system under
the parking lot.

Figure 4-48 Section

Figure 4-47 Site Plan

23
Disaggregation:
The design is broken into two problems: holding the rain where it falls; and infiltrating the rain
water. The design solves the problems by using heavy vegetation to hold rain where it falls and sand-filled
holes to capture and infiltrate rain water.

Figure 4-49 Site Plan Figure 4-50 Section

24
Three Methods Applied to a Complex Design

Simple designs do not fully test the methods in a landscape architecture application. The methods
when applied to a standard landscape design problem. Three diverse methods are selected and applied to
a common landscape architecture design of normal complexity. The design problem selected is the devel-
opment of the Florida Rock location in Washington, DC. The area around the site is undergoing massive
redevelopment. The city is building a baseball stadium next to the site on the west, and all the remaining
land in the area is held by developers with plans to build.
Currently the site is occupied by a concrete plant and has about 900 feet of river front on the tidal
portion of the Anacostia River. The river is polluted and environmentally degraded. The proposed use of
the site is as follows:

Program elements: Site is 5.8 acres near the new baseball stadium in Southwest Washington, DC.

• 1.1 million square foot project

• 3 buildings
• 600,000 square foot office
• 36,000 square foot retail
• 160 residential units
• 235 room hotel
• Two underground levels of parking with 1,087 spaces

The goals of the design are to: 1) integrate the public and private space of the plaza; and 2) in-
corporate the new stadium and surrounding proposed development, while making the area attractive and
desirable when baseball is not played.

Figure 4-51 Site Map

Figure 4-52 Site Map

25
 Method 1 Disaggregation

Figure 4-53 Design 1 Beginning

Site Organization

Figure 4-54 Design 1 Middle

Constructed Layers

Figure 4-55 Design 1 End. Final Form. The design develops into an amalga-
mation of parts.
26
Figure 4-56 Summary and Analysis
27
 Method 2 Focus on the Means

Figure 4-57 Design 2 Beginning

Morphology

Figure 4-58 Design 2 Middle

Site Development

Figure 4-59 Design 2 End. The design has external connections, but the internal
connections and internal and external structure needs to be developed.

28
Figure 4-60 Summary and Analysis

29
 Method 3 Learning Probes

Figure 4-61 Design 3 Beginning

Start with basics

Figure 4-62 Design 3 Middle

Play with connection between elements

Figure 4-63 Design 3 End. The design connects internally. Completing the de-
sign requires more external connections and internal and external structure. 30
Figure 4-64 Design 3 Sections
31
Figure 4-65 Summary and Analysis

32
Chapter 5

Conclusion

Reviewing the effects of methods on the simple and complex designs, the following questions
are generated. Within the design loop, only the choice of methods are outside the personal reality of the
designer. What is the relevance of this? Some methods identified are closely related. Can they be catego-
rized by function? Using different methods changes the outcome of the simple design and they are fairly
complete. The complex designs are not complete. The use of one method distorts the design and makes it
not relevant. Therefore, a combination of methods must be used.
An examination of the methods allows one to place the eighteen methods into categories. These
categories are defined by the methods effects on the outcome of the design. These eighteen methods can
be classified into four categories:

1) Modeling systems—These methods develop external connections to the design. The design must
transition from the design to the world outside of the design. The design does not exist by itself and these
methods help place the design in context of the larger world.

1. System Modeling
2. Environmental Relation
3. Anthropometric Analogies
4. Literal Analogies

2) Interrelationships and dependencies—These methods develop internal connections which must be de-
veloped in order to avoid running the risk that a design ends up as just a sum of its parts.

5. Learning Probes
6. Subconscious Suggestion
7. Brain Storming
8. Design by Evaluation Criteria
9. Well Spaced Alternatives
10. Focus on the Means

3) Incorporation and adaption —These methods deal with external existing structures which can be
thought of as a framework or skeleton on which designers build connections. These external structures
must be incorporated into the design.

11. Incremental Improvement

12. Incremental Adaptation
13. Typologies
14. Pattern Languages
15. Design by Behavior Setting

33
4) Structure problems—These methods develop internal structures. A design must prioritize and weight its
design elements and programs in order to create a framework on which to build.

16. Structure of the Problem
17. Optimizing the Essential Function
18. Disaggregation

Using all four of these categories in any design is important for two basic reasons. First, if all
four categories are addressed during a design process, the design will have a greater chance of reaching a
critical mass of necessary connections and redundancies to ensure a substainable design able to adapt to
the ever-changing world. If all four categories are not used in a design, the design may fail because it will
lack one or more of the following:
• External connections: If a design is not connected to the surrounding area, it runs the risk of become
irrelevant. The external connections, such as connecting to infrastructure and community, must be ad-
dressed.
• Internal connections: Elements within a design must have some connections. Otherwise the design is a
amalgamation of parts with no synergy.
• External structure: External structure incorporates existing conventions into the design. For example,
American cars drive on the right side of the road. If this well understood convention is changed, it
causes problems for those in the design and those entering the design.
• Internal structure: Internal structure establishes an order and weight of the design elements within the
design. If the most important element is a lake, then every other element in the design is subordinate
to the lake.
The second reason it is important to use all four categories of methods is because it helps designers
navigate a vast, almost infinite solution space to find a solution. The methods are akin to the “tetra space”
coordinate system in which four axis are needed to reference or fix a point in space. (Hasslberger, 1) Ref-
erencing a solution in terms of known elements or coordinates anchors the abstract world of the designer
to the concrete world. By referencing internal and external connections and structure, the design is more
easily understood and relevant to the people using the design.

Methodologies/methods are important for many reasons.

• 1) Methods give structure to the path way between the current situation and the desired state by
establishing a priority and weighting the design elements and programs or a design strategy.
• 2) In addition to establishing structure, methods determine how design elements connect. Differ-
ent methods address different types and ways of constructing connections in a design. If a broad
range of methods are incorporated into the process, more connections are generated. The results
should create redundancies, interconnections and interdependencies within the design system,
which moves the end result closer to the goal of adaptive or sustainable design.
• 3) In landscape architecture design, the process must incorporate all four categories of methods.
While using all four does not guarantee the design will be adaptive and sustainable, it will greatly
increase the chances of this happening. When the design incorporates methods from all four cat-
egories, it will have internal and external structure and connect internally and externally.
• 4) Methods also shape the output of a design. Applying different methods to the same design
project will result in different designs with different connections and structures.

34
• 5) Methods are the way to establish a connection between the personal elements of the design pro-
cess—experiences, cognitive abilities and perceptions—and the “real” world. A designer always runs
the risk of getting lost in his or her own constructed reality. Methods connect a designer’s cognitive
abilities, experiences, and perceptions with the real world in which the design must exist.

Finally, methods connect outsiders to the designer’s abstract personal reality and to the design. For
others to understand a design, they must be able to see or sense connections, and connect the design to
their perception of reality or the “real” world. If all four methods are used, a design is more likely to be
referenced and fixed in the concrete world.
The variables in landscape architecture design are methods. The conscious choice of methods
changes the results of a design, as demonstrated by the application of the eighteen methods to a simple de-
sign. Each method affects the design differently in terms of building connections and structure. If a single
method is exclusively used in a design that has the complexity normally found in a landscape architect de-
sign, the design will most likely fail. A single method does not address all the structures and connections
needed to generate a relevant design.
A landscape architect should be familiar with all eighteen methods. Each method or combination
of methods increases the number of design alternatives for any given design problem, allowing a land-
scape architect to select from a large design solution set. The categorization of the methods allows a de-
signer to check the design in terms of internal and external connections and structures. If the design lacks
one or more of these categories, the design may not be complete and may need to be reworked to address
the lacking categories.
Certainly no cookbook or formula exists for design because too many variables exist within the
design process. Limiting the process to a cookbook or formulaic approach restricts the solution set and
fails to allow for a better solution based on different combinations and types of methods. However, the
four categories of methods are not limiting. Instead, the use of all four categories of methods in a design
is essential to achieve the ultimate goal of landscape architecture: the creation of a design that is adaptive,
sustainable, and relevant or a complex system. Together, the four categories—system modeling, interrela-
tionships/dependencies, incorporation/adaption and structure problems—ensure that the necessary connec-
tions and redundancies exist to create a design that adapts to the ever-changing world. Moving between
these four categories during a design and reinforcing one or more that was not present ensures a more
comprehensive design result. Changing methods may help a designer remove mental blocks, break out of
design ruts in which designs look similar and improve design results. By changing the methods employed,
a designer may construct different connections and structures resulting in changed designs.
Another complication in my research was due to the fact that I was limited to researching
English-only studies and research. Possible other methods may have been explored and published in lan-
guages other than English. Unfortunately I was unable to identify or analyze these potential sources.
Future research questions generated from this work include more research into the design process
model and the cognitive side of design. What cognitive abilities are used in landscape architecture design?
Can cognitive ability be improved or taught, and if so, how should it be done? Should studio include a
formal lecture component where methods are taught and cognitive abilities improved?

35
Bibliography

Albus, James S. “The Engineering of Mind, Intelligent Systems Division.” National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20895. 1 November 1998. May, 2006
< http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/documents/albus/6201.pdf.>

Amidon, Jane. Radical Landscapes. New York: Thames & Hudson Inc., 2001.

Barabasi, A.L. Linked: The New Science of Networks. New York: Perseus Publishing, 2002.

Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. New York: Oxford, 1988.

Bevlin, Marjorie Elliott. Design Through Discovery. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1990.

Brown, Dick. Fly Fishing For Bonefish. Guildford, CT: Lyon Press, 2003.

Cantor, Norman F. In the Wake of the Plague. Prince Frederick, MD: Recorded Books, LLC, 2002.

Clark, Andy. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1997.

Connor, Jane Marantz, Schackman, Maxine, and Serbin, Lisa A. “Sex-related Differences in Response to
Practice on a Visual-Spatial Test and Generalization to a Related Test.”
Child Develop ment. Vol 49, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), 24-29.

Cullina, William. Native Trees, Shrubs & Vines. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002.

Darke, Rick. The American Woodland Garden. Portland: Timber Press, 2002.

Diamond, Jared. Collapse. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.

Drori, Offer. “Implementing the OODPM Methodology in a Large

Computer Company.” SHAAM – Information Systems. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
May, 2006 < http://shum.huji.ac.il/~offerd/papers/drori102001.pdf.>

Eberhart, Mark. Why Things Break. New York: Three River Press, 2003.

Francis, Mark. “ A Case Study Method For Landscape Architecture.” Landscape Architecture Foundation.
Calpoly. September, 1999. May, 2006< http://www.calpoly.edu/~sede/pdf/LAFcasestudy.
pdf.>

Gero, John S. “Creativity, Emergence, and Evolution in Design”, Key Centre of Design Computing,
Department of Architectural and Design Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
john@arch.su.edu.au, May, 2006 < http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~john/publications/1996/
96GeroCreativity.pdf>.
36
Gero, John S. “Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema For Design” Design Computing
Unit. University of Sydney. 2006 May, 2006 < http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~john/publica
tions/ger-prototypes/ger-aimag.html>

Goudarzi, Sara. “Left Unmowed, Power-line Land Might Suite Bees.” Christian Science Monitor.
September 15, 2005 Edition. May, 2006 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0915/p14s01-sten.
html>

Haeberlin, Herman K. “The Concept of the Unconscious.” Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and
Scientific Methods, Vol. 14, No. 20 (Sep. 27, 1917), 543-550.

Haag, Richard. Bloedel Reserve and Gas Works Park. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998.

Hasslberger, Josef. “Tetra Space Co-ordinates” May 2006 <http://www.hasslberger.com/phy/phy_6.htm>

Hauser, Robert M. “Meritocracy, Cognitive Ability, and the Sources of Occupational Success”,
Department of Sociology, Center for Demography and Ecology. The University of Wisconsin-
Madison August 17, 2002 May, 2006 < http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~hauser/merit_01_081502_com
plete.pdf>

Holland, John H. Hidden Order, how adaption builds complexity. New York: Halix Books, 1996.

Hooker, J.N. “Is Design Theory Possible?” Graduate School of Industrial Administration. Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. October 1991. Revised November 1992 May, 2006 <
http://www.gsia.cmu.edu/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/gsia/jh38/design3.ps.>

Jones, John Chris. Design Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1992.

Jossassen, David H. “Thinking Technology, Toward a Constructivist Design Model.”

Educational Technology. (April, 1994) 34-37.

Järvinen, Aki. “Theory as Game: Designing the GamegameOffer” Veikkaus the Finnish Ational Lottery.
arhunkierros 4. May, 2006 < http://www.gamesconference.org/digra2005/papers/a3cf
c140882acffefb860e6ecbdoc.>

Jellicoe, Geoffrey and Susan. The Landscape Of Man. London: Thames and Hudson, 1975.

Johnson, Steven. Emergence. New York: Scribner, 2004.

Keats, Jonathon. “John Koza has Built an Invention Machine” Popular Science. May, 2006.

Kapor, Mitchell, “A Software Design Manifesto.” Bringing Design to Software, Addison Wesley, 1996.
May, 2006 < http://hci.stanford.edu/bds/1-kapor.html>

Kaufman, Kenn. Lives of North American Birds. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996.

Kauffman, Stuart . At home in the universe, search for the laws of self organization and complexity. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1995. 37
Kauffman, Stuart. Investitgations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Koetting, J. Randall and Malisa, Mark. “Philosophy, Research, and Education.” aect-members.org.
University of Nevada, Reno. 1996 . < http://aect-members.org/m/research_handbook/Chapters/37.
pdf.>

Kricher, John and Morrison, Gordon. Peterson Fields Guides, Eastern Forests. New York: Houghton Mif
flin Company, 1988.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford, 1968.

Lynch, Kevin and Gary Hack. Site Planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984.

Miller, RS; Nero, “RW, Hummingbird-sapsucker Associations in Northern Climates.

Canadian.” Journal of Zoology/Revue Canadienne de Zoologie. [CAN. J. ZOOL.]. Vol. 61, no. 7,
(1983) 1540-1546.

Montero, Marta Iris. Roberto Burle Marx, The Lyrical Landscape. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2001.

Moore, Catherine. “Overlooking the visual.” Journal of Architecture. Volume 8, (Spring, 2003.)

Moore, Charles W, Mitchell, William J. and Turnbull, Jr, William. The Poetics of Gardens. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1993.

Parkinson, S.E. “U. K. Innovative Visual-spatial Powers in Dyslexics: A New Perspective?”

Art Dyslexia Trust, U.K., 3 Nov. 2005, May, 2006 <http://www.rmplc.co.uk/orgs/nellalex/adtvi
suospatial.html>

Pavel, Silvia and Nolet, Diane. Handbook of Terminology. Public Works and Government Services
Canada,Translation Bureau. 2001. Catalogue No S53-28/2001.

Petre, Marian, Sharp, Helen, and Johnson, Jeffrey. “Complexity Through Combination: An Account of
Knitwear Design.” Design Studies. Volume 27, Issue 2 ( March, 2006) 183-222.

Petrides, George A. and Wehr, Janet. Eastern Trees. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988.

Polk, Major Robert B. A Critique of the Boyd Theory- Is It Releveant to the Army? Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas: United States Army Command and General Staff Collage, 1999.

Swaffield, Simon, Ed. Theory in Landscape Architecture, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2002.

Richards, D., B.D. McKay, and W.A. Richards. “Collective choice and mutual knowledge structures.”
Advances in Complex Systems. (1998, Vol. 1) pp. 221-236.

38
Ried, Grant W. From Concept to Form in Landscape Design. New York: John Wiley, 1993.

Roberts, Andrew. “Cognitive Styles and Student Progression in Architectural Design Education.”
Design Studies. Volume 27, Issue 2 (March, 2006) 167-181.

Rocha, Luis “Complex Systems Modeling: Using Metaphors From Nature in Simulation and Scientific
Models” Los Alamos National Laboratory, May, 2003 <http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/
complex/>

Rompelman, Otto and Haaf, Wouterten. “What is Design, A Framework for Design Methodology”
Proceedings of the SEFI-CDWG Seminar Design in
Engineering Education. Odense, Denmark, 22-24 October 1998, 97-101.

Rowe, Peter. “A Priori Knowledge and Heuristic Reasoning in Architectural Design.”

The Journal of Enterprise Architecture. 36/1 (Fall, 1982).

Schmitt, Major John and Dr. Gary Klien. “Fighting in the Fog: Dealing with Battlefield Uncertainty.”
Marine Core Gazette (August, 1996), 54-65.

Sibley, David Allen. The Sibley Guide to Bird Life & Behavior. New York: Knopf, 2001.

Sargent, Robert. “Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris).” December, 1999,

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet, Number 14.

Williamson, Sheri L. Hummingbirds of North America. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001.

Tracey- Contemporary Drawing Research, Loughborough University, 2006. May, 2006

< http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/tracey/>

Winner, Ellen. “Giftedness vs Creativity in the visual arts.” Poetics, 24, 6, (1999) 349-377.

Wiskow, Margaret. “Mathetics For Dyslexics - Activities from atoms to bits.” ISEC 2000. University of
Manchester. 2000, May, 2006< http://www.isec2000.org.uk/abstracts/papers_w/wiskow_1.htm>

Wellman, Carl. “Wittgenstein and the Egocentric Predicament.” Mind, New Series. Vol. 68, No. 270 (Apr.,
1959) 223-233.

West, T.G. “The Gifts of Dyslexia: Talents Among Dyslexics and Their Families.”
HK J Paediatr (new series) (2005) 10:153-158

Y. Zeng, P. Gu, “A Science-based Approach to Product Design Theory, Part I: Formulation and
Formalization of Design Process.” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. Volume 15,
Number 4. (August, 1999) (12) 341-352.

39
CHRISTOPHER JAMES LIDY

EDUCATION
• Master of Landscape Architecture, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 2007
• Certificate of Landscape Design, George Washington University, Washington, DC 2005
• B.S. General Management, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, 1989

EXPERIENCE

Owner, Natural Designs 2002 to present

Own and manage a residential and small commercial landscape design and installation company emphasiz-
ing the use of native plants. Responsibilities include: meeting with the clients and prospects; determining
client needs; identifying and developing budgets; developing design from site survey and construction of
base map to client presentations; estimating costs; soliciting bids and RFPs from nursery, carpentry, ma-
sonry, irrigation and lighting contractors; negotiating terms, conditions and prices with contractors; and
overseeing contractors in field.

Outside Sales Representative, Washingtonpost.com 2001 to 2002

Marketed advertising for online jobs board. Products sold included banners, virtual career fairs and resume
database searches.

Business Development Associate, Staples 2000 to 2001

Developed new business, generated and qualified prospects, assessed prospects’ needs and developed stra-
tegic procurement programs designed to meet the specific objectives of the client.

Senior Account Executive, Waste Management 1995 to 2000

Developed a territory by generating new business, growing and maintaining customer base, retaining ac-
counts, renewing contracts and cross selling. Identified, targeted and constructed strategies to close large
commercial accounts with multiple locations and service demands. Accounts included utilities, hospital
groups, property management companies, manufacturing plants and regional distribution facilities.
Achievements 1999: closed the top two accounts in the division and promoted to senior account executive;
1998: generated new account growth of 19 percent; 1997: achieved new account growth rate of 22 percent
and awarded regional sales award; 1997-1996: closed 4 of the top 10 regional accounts; 1996: generated
new account growth of 19 percent; 1995: promoted from sales representative to account executive nine
months after joining company

Professional Coatings Representative, Operations Manager, Sherwin-Williams 1990 to 1994

Developed new sales territory by prospecting and generating new accounts. Grew territory from $0 to
$250,000 in a year. Managed inside commercial sales, technical, administrative and logistical support to
customers and sales representatives, accounts receivable and payable, and day-to-day management of the
commercial center.

Infantry Officer’s Basic Course (Ft. Benning, GA) 1989 to 1990

Infantry and leadership training; led groups of 2 to 40 lieutenants in simulated combat exercises.

40